@zahlanzi saidA woman might have the right to be pregnant and a woman might have the right to drink alcohol but might not have the right to do both simultaneously.
Nope, they both hinge on the woman's sovereignty over her body. If she has the right to terminate her pregnancy she has the right to anything that would be legal to a man or non-pregnant woman
"A woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy; does that mean she also has the right cause her child to have birth defects?"
So intentionally and irreversibly terminating a faetu ...[text shortened]... gs a woman should avoid during pregnancy, would you like to make a law on each of them? All of them?
Just as everyone has the right to drink and the right to drive with a valid license but not the right to do both simultaneously.
There is no reason to fear reasonable restrictions simply because you fear unreasonable ones.
2 edits
@deepthought saidCan refusing a pregnant woman the right to use alcohol in some way be compared to refusing a person the right to drive a car after drinking alcohol? Is there a similar responsibility?
The drinking advice in the UK is that pregnant women should avoid drinking more than one glass of wine a week (this is from memory, I can't remember the exact guidance). Since the restaurant had no way of knowing that she was not abiding by this then even if it were permissible for them to enforce pregnancy drinking quotas they shouldn't be refusing her the first glass.
@torunn saidOnly if you are willing to define a fetus as a person with natural rights. That's a big can of worms to open!
Can refusing a pregnant woman the right to use alcohol in some way be compared to refusing a person the right to drive a car after drinking alcohol? Is there a similar responsibility?
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidYes, and there have been other threads on that topic.
Only if you are willing to define a fetus as a person with natural rights. That's a big can of worms to open!
@athousandyoung saidCan you precisely define the "time" when you and everyone else here chatting became a "person"?
Only if you are willing to define a fetus as a person with natural rights. That's a big can of worms to open!
@joe-shmo saidBirth
Can you precisely define the "time" when you and everyone else here chatting became a "person"?
2 edits
@athousandyoung saidIn your estimation what scientific measure defines a person such that it happens at "birth"?
Birth
Right now your entire criterion is when the fetus is moved spatially 1 ft in any direction outside the womb.
@joe-shmo saidWhether they were born or not
In your estimation what scientific measure defines a person such that it happens at "birth"?
@athousandyoung saidRight now your entire criterion is when the fetus is moved spatially 1 ft in any direction outside the womb.
Whether they were born or not
@joe-shmo saidIt's not "my" criterion. It is the law's.
In your estimation what scientific measure defines a person such that it happens at "birth"?
Right now your entire criterion is when the fetus is moved spatially 1 ft in any direction outside the womb.
@athousandyoung saidWhat are the gestational development stages at which "birth" can occur in a "fetus"?
Whether they were born or not
@athousandyoung saidBUMP
If you can find me a case where someone was convicted of murder because they caused a miscarriage then I will reconsider.
@joe-shmo saidwikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
What are the gestational development stages at which "birth" can occur in a "fetus"?